Fletcher & Reo Response Paper to Sanders on the Wisconsin Wolf Hunt

Matthew Fletcher & Nick Reo published a short paper, “Response to Sanders: Ma’Iignan as Property,” at the Wisconsin Law Review Online. Jason Sanders’ excellent law review note that started all this is here.

Here is an excerpt:

American law has long recognized the state as the owner of wild game within a state’s borders, including gray wolves (or “ma’iingan” in Anishinaabemowin), within the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. However, as Anishinaabe scholar Jason Sanders forcefully demonstrates, the Anishinaabeg—indigenous people of the western Great Lakes known as the Ottawa (Odawa), Potawatomi (Bodewadmi), and Chippewa (Ojibwe)—considered ma’iingan siblings, not property. One does not hunt one’s siblings.
***
Sanders’s paper is a fine example of cutting edge, pragmatic legal scholarship that will allow the stakeholders, in time, to push through the adversarial rhetoric and move into a more useful cooperative mode. Federal Indian law, often through the assertion of American Indian treaty rights, has historically been a powerful engine for change. Treaty rights cases arising from Anishinaabeg treaties often do not result in a winner-take-all outcome, with either tribes or states prevailing over all opponents. Instead, the rule of law as exemplified by Indian treaty rights forces state interests to reckon with the interests of a discrete and insular minority. As such, regulation of hunting, fishing, gathering, and other activities on or near Indian country is an intergovernmental affair, dominated by cooperative fact finding and negotiation.

 

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, cultural resources, Scholarship, treaty rights and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Fletcher & Reo Response Paper to Sanders on the Wisconsin Wolf Hunt

  1. Bob Anderson says:

    NIce work, but I’d say that the state’s ownership theory is simply not a correct statement of American law despite claims of state property rights in animals. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc. 431 U.S. 265, 284-85 (1977).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s